Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video

Lytro has shipped its first Light Field Camera to a customer and we've had a chance to spend some time with one, to see what their experience is likely to be like. It's a totally unconventional camera that captures images that can be refocused after they're shot, so we haven't shot our usual, 2D test charts but we've tried to sum-up its technology and what it's like to shoot with.

Comments

There is an alternative technology which was developed for mobile phone cameras.It is high res and allows refocusing on Android. I have seen it live with amazing performance.Its developed by a company called linximaging.Maybe on the next iPhone or galaxy.

In today's photography there seem to be basically two methods to control sense of depth in a 2D image: perspective and selective focus. However, there is another method which is often used in paintings and computer graphics: haze. Thereby I mean that objects that are further away fade to gray. Of course, haze may also be visible in a photograph, but it's not controllable. Perhaps until now!

Wouldn't it be possible to use the depth information captured by the Lytro to add artificial haze to an image, in a controlled manner?

> the reason why they decided not to go 3D > could be that the effect is too weak.

should be able to do something about it in software. would like to see it in version two if they have money to burn. though that won't solve fundamental flaws in Lytro camera.

the 3- or 4-stop downgrade is only the sensor side. it has issues on the lens side, too. that the camera requires a larger lens than a normal camera. an analagy may be the phase detect AF (which can be called a super low res 3D camera). the aperture eclipse will cause problems so the sensor has to be made small before being wasted 10 fold.

I've read the first page of comments and nobody is complaining about "blurring the intent by stretching the focus." I focus on what I want to be in focus because, yeah, that's the punch line. So she's got pretty eyes but do I want to offer her other parts to be focus-able as well? Probably not.

So okay you can separate the art from technology and claim it is not about, ehm, tits peeping, and all new tech then deserves to blaze its own phases and fields and quantum mechanical wavefunctions instantly collapsible yet recomputable under massive this or that micro aperture.

But if in the end you give me a choice of admiring the perfection of strawberries or a pretty woman or a bridge -- I take none, for none of these offer the context that makes it interesting.

Well, I read all but the last 10 pages of Ng’s Phd and there’s nothing inherently noisy about a light field camera.

Nor is the image somehow much much “darker” as someone claimed here.

I happen to think Lytro made a mistake shipping this camera with the fixed ISO of 800, that setting could account for some “noise” and banding in Lytro examples. But almost any sensor of these dimensions with 16MP would have noise at that ISO setting. (And anyhow, as you hinted at, that ISO problem can be fixed with a firmware update by Lytro.)

Consider that added.

You still have not answered the question of what makes you think this system is so particularly noisy and where you get the specific signal to noise ratio numbers.

I answered it already, that Lytro camera uses a bloody expensive way to catch a 3D image and uses that for refocusing a low resolution 2D image only (probably because they don't think 3D displays are popular enough).

ISO800 means little by itself. a 1:9 ratio is my assumption. someone said 1:16 below then 4-stops worse qualtiy. Lytro tries hard to hide things while persuading people they have something good.

(1) we used to have digital cameras with resolutions as bad as old analog TVs. those cameras with poor image quality were sold for some other values they could provide. the most important I think is to communicate with people, that you can get it instantly and you can send it via Internet.

Lytro camera does provide some extra value, very little compared with digital and Polaroid cameras, totally different things.

(2) there is a similar way to do the same at high qualily which is known as AFB, that you fire a burst of shots while changing the focus.

Lytro camera is effectively a 1.2MP camera that can capture 9 AFB frames at once. the sensor used for that should be about 3240x3240 = 10.5MP.

they call it 11Mray but there cannot be 11Mrays. they need 9 pixels for one ray so 1.2Mrays, same resolution as the output.

you are right. same problem for HDR. we do have cameras designed to take single-shot HDR (Fujifilm). the idea doesn't go popular, far less than HDR but it's understandable because the extra cost isn't too much, not 9 times.

I recall my first digital Camera an Olympus Camedia 1.3 Mega Pixel, with a smart media card. The focus time was slow, there was no optical zoom limited digital zoom, but the camera was adequate to print 4x6 snaps.

This light field digital camera is no different, it is pioneering a new field of technology it has to start small in order to develop. After all it is capturing light data from a cube of space not just one focal plane, the amount of of data captured and the mathamatical power to process all that data must be imense. The larger the plane of conventional resolution the larger the data stream and post processing requirements. This equates to mind boggling quantities of data.

I think this is fascinating and no doubt will go somewhere. My guess it will find its way to the NYPD surveillance people the next time there is a demonstration in NY. Will it make me want to buy one...no, probably not. When you start out with a Leica C and your heros are Henri Cartier-Bresson, Edward Weston, Steichen, it is hard to abandon substance for a lipstick tube. But, I think for many newbies taking pictures, and I say taking pictures, not photography, it will be wonderful. I'll stick with my Nikons and Canons.

But according to the New York Times, there aren't really the many demonstration in New York City.

See the Times' "reporting" on the 2003 preinvasion of Iraq demonstration or the 20,000 who gathered at City Hall to protest for real medical insurance reform in the USA (note the reform hasn't happened yet--despite what the NYTimes would claim.)

This is all just an ironic jab at the Times, not a claim that demonstrations don't happen in NYC.

each image a Lytro camera captures is 9 times darker (so it's really a "light demanding camera"). by simply stopping down your current camera 3 stops, you can gain a lot of DoF if that's what you want.

you got a deeper field at a much lower resolution, what's the point? anyone can instantly get 3 times "deeper field" by downsize the image to 1/3 resolution. you don't gain anything, only lose the resolution.

yabokkie, imagine being able to go back to out-of-focus images and refocus them onto what you want. Use a smaller aperture? Well, what if I don't want everything in the scene to be in focus? That IS one of the reasons I shoot a camera with a large sensor, to have a narrower depth-of-field.

HowaboutRAW writes: "You gain being able to fix focus after the fact, blur too."

...because we really need your "cheesey - after the fact Gaussian blur" that uses a marquee'd area in the photo that's arbitrarily defined by your rudimentary contrast-sensing algorithm. Please, spare me now. I simply don't think photographers will fall for this feature that only YOU so highly covet. They'll want REAL optical DOF like the type shown in this picture from Canon's new 5D mkIII. Do your people simply not understand this simple fact of real optical blur?

Is uses real optical focus and real optical blur. Ironic that the the principle of the Lytro camera is that it processes more information than is readily available to a normal camera's sensor or film plane. (To clarify, that's what you're refusing to do--process.)

The review says that focus is slow for Creative mode. In everyday mode, the lens prefocused as you zoom but then zoom range is limited to only 3.5x. BTW, you can get the same zero shutter lag with any compact that supports a hyperfocal focus setting (but you don't get selective focus that way.)

If the $400-$500 first release is poorly executed and thus sells poorly then there may not be a second or third release. Right now it's a novelty camera priced like a high-end compact.

43-150mm equiv in Everyday mode. To get the 43-340mm you have to be in the slow focusing Creative mode.

Yes, in Everyday mode the focus is always set when you zoom (and thus focus time is hidden in zoom time.) It sounds like you did not use Creative mode where you do need to refocus.

My Fuji MX-1200 from 2000 has essentially immeasurable shutter lag when using the VF. And if you turn off the flash, it's also almost instant startup. That was a $200 1.3MP camera twelve years ago. The Casio Z40 and Sony DSC-90 are also immediate in fixed focus mode and using the VF. (A D3s has to get the mirror out of the way and stop down the lens. Compacts use a combined aperture/shutter and no mirror.)

You need to convince the consumer that what he's getting for his money is worth it. 3x zoom and limited resolution for $400 was ten years ago. It also shows the optical limitations of LFC at the current level of decimation.

> This Lytro is faster to shoot than 12 year old P&S cameras.

If you take AF out of the process, then both Lytro and a compact have to do the exact same task: measure light, reset the sensor, and trip the shutter. Except for any difference in 12 years of electronic progress, that takes the same amount of time.

Are you suggesting Lytro will need to withdraw from the market at least once before LFC will become mainstream? (BTW, 25 years ago cameras were electronic but not digital aka still video cameras.)

I may have been wrong about the Sony, but check the Wikipedia entry for "history of digital camera" and you'll find unheard of CCD digi cams from the late 1980s and very very early 1990s.

Still not sure this wiki history is complete--I believe Apple also shipped something in about 1991.

So still yes, Lytro may not be the final word on this gear--it's not a Lytro invention--at all.

I happen to think Lytro went stupidly cheap--this first intro should have had higher resolution, a removable battery, removable flash memory, filter threads, ISO control, upon release a Windows version of the software, a tripod mount, a different zoom control mechanism and possibly video--maybe just 30 second clips, and video software included.

I understand why Lytro did the $400 version, but it really should have been a $900 version.

It's shortcomings mean that people genuinely interested in digital photography will skip it, unless $400 is the like the price of a cup of coffee.

Interesting concept, and nice to see people are still thinking out of the box in a field that could easily be considered 'wrapped up'.

I'm not overly convinced about the long-term value of the camera in this form, but the science is quite fun. Be good to see what they can achieve when they have more resources - for that alone, I hope it does well.

I'm not surprised that the first commercial consumer lightfield camera has many drawbacks. Its resolution maybe poor but this new way of photography requires really a screen for full function, not a high quality poster print. Anyway, a Lytro is a toy, I think, but a great one to have - photography is a lot of playing around, isn't it?

The Lytro is the first consumer level representative for a completely new era of digital photography! In future for video, too, research is going on on that. And when the technology will have improved you can really keep it as a funny First in your collection of vintage cameras. I currently try to get one, even it is not so easy from Europe (can't order it from here). Hope it'll work. If I want great high quality pics I'll still shoot with my conventional DSLRs, of course.

It is certainly a cool idea. BUT, I think the hurdles involved in producing something that can produce images of high quality/decent resolution are huge. Maybe we'll see something more than a toy in about 5 years. (Anyone remember all the hype about Foveon sensors that still haven't reached their "potential" after ten years.)

I'm not saying that the Foveon technology doesn't work, just that it has limitations that keep it out of the main stream. I can see the Lytro unit becoming another niche device - assuming they can bump up the resolution.

The current Lytro uses mask technology and a 16 pixel-per-pinhole array which is why the huge lens. Figure out how to make microlenses of the required quality to replace the mask and the sensitivity goes up as much as 16x.

But, the real magic of the approach will come with a macro version, which can allow focus stacking with zero edge artifacts since the entire exposure is taken from one optical plane. Non-macro stacking could be done with the existing camera - all it needs is software.

I think the ultimate solution should be video, that computers will generate a 3D model from a video, the quality depends on the video, and you can even change view and lighting just like a computer game. all it needs is huge processing power.

While the technology is not quite there yet, it seems to have the potential to eliminate costly manual- and auto-focus mechanisms. Get rid of that, and zoom design probably gets easier and cheaper, too. Couple that with electronic shutters, high quality EVFs, and we've essentially said good-bye to moving mechanical systems in cameras. That, rather than creative control, could turn out to be the killer side of the app.

There's a race to build faster and faster auto focus systems, to reduce shutter lag to an absolute minimum... Get rid of motors and other mechanics, and the job has gotten a whole lot easier.

On the movie set, if Focus Pullers and some of the careful measurement of lens-to-subject distances can be reduced (and transferred to post production, when there aren't hundreds of people standing around "on the clock"), there's real money to be saved.

It doesn't (yet) eliminate costly focus mechanisms. If you read the description of "Everyday" mode, it sounds like focus is adjusted to the hyperfocal distance as you zoom. In "Creative" mode, you still need to focus. If you watch the videos, you are supposed to focus somewhere in the middle of your subject i.e., position the camera/focus so that the foreground is somewhat fuzzy. The review notes the increased time for Creative mode.

Yes, Erik, not yet. We read the same review. I'm not thinking about firmware v. 1.02, more like v. 5.0, or 10.63. But considering the potential benefits, I'm sure it's already in more than one R&D budget. It definitely does not seem unattainable...

I feel the future of this innovation is positive. Still photography is just one of the many areas that we can apply this innovation. Movie making, surveillance and distance measurement, court evidence, replacing 3ccds, marketing tools, presentations.... and many others.But new technology is short-life, if they don't speed-up their process in making returns for their investments, I'm doubt how long the people still feel interest in this.

Lytro video vs. dpr screen shots: either the Lytro videos linked in the review use a simulated display that's much, much better than the real one or dpreview's images of the rear LCD output are rather poor.

Google Street View ?All those panoramic shot websites (lots of them), including extreme sports ones ?Almost every hotel website, and a lot of real estate agents too ?I still see that around a lot, actually its more neatly integrated nowadays.

those extra pixels are better used for something like HDR, if the camera already interpolates data from multiple pixels, imagine under/over exposing some of the pixels would give pretty good dynamic range without multiple exposure

Don'y worry about using too many mega- (or terra-) bytes ! The "byte-cost" is always lowering, by increasing demand ! Give it some years, then a tera-pixel sensor can do things NO kind of optics ever will be able to, and do it cheaply, by this almost unbelievable new technology ! Keep visions alive, man !Example:In the late -70's, I worked with an "IBM System32" having approx. 0,013 Mbyte, or 13k RAM (yes, thirteen Kilobytes, or 13000 bytes RAM) and a 5Mb hard-drive. Nevertheless, this computer could run "heavy" applications, like invoicing, salaries, general ledger and so on, for a fish-exporting company of 35-40 employees. So don't worry about using many Mb (or Tb) to perform seemingly simple tasks ! That's what ALL computing is about today, superior technology and flexibility, by seemingly: "Overkill" !

Page 52. The point of that section was to show that the microlens size allows one to trade between spatial resolution and "focus" resolution. In his example, smaller focus resolution can be obtained with 8 MP spatial.

The difference is that Ng has come up with the methods and the salesmanship to make light-field photography into a consumer product. 1080x1080 is the output size - I'm still wondering what the "resolution" might be (and if it varies with distance.)

You have to give them credit for trying. It is exactly the concept that looks good on paper but fails as a product, but their optimism is commendable.I think as a standalone device it is useless, but probably it could be pretty good for mobile phones as a way to cut the cost as an integrated solution.

yes Lytro has a foundamental problem in marketing. the optics and components are basically all the same and there is nothing special but they can't say it or their product will taste flat and look poor.

It does appear to be a solution looking for a problem so I'm not giving up my Fotron just yet. But if it can be turned into a really good pinhole camera with not selective, but unlimited, depth of field at all distances and high quality output it would be the obvious choice for unattended uses like surveillance.

I think this technology can be further enhanced so that it may be useful for surveillance and distance measurement purposes. Besides, it may be useful for the motion picture industries... think about the director can realize a number of effects that cannot be achieved by the current available instruments.

The Lytro camera looks like another one of those "Gee-Whiz" products that has interesting technology, but will never make it as a viable consumer product. Some things are best left as only imaginings in an inventor's mind, and the Lytro camera appears to be one of those.-Jon

this camera captures a field of image instead of a 2d plane, than turns it into a file that can output different planes of the captured field as far as i understand. right? doesnt that mean it should also be able to manipulate different planes of the image independent of each other? for example, wouldnt it be possible to artificially blur one plane of the image while keeping the other plane sharp? that would create superb bokeh without relying on the optics or the size of the sensor. please correct me if im mistaken.

I think not. This is not a tomography. The information recorded on the sensor does not care where the ray is originated. Therefore, it can not selectively blur the image according to its original position.

I think that is exactly what it could do with suitable software. You could shift the planes of focus just as with a view camera. Or even have two intersecting planes in focus and nothing else. (Within the range of focus of the lens as the microlens/lightfield design provides the equivalent to several extra stops of depth of field from a fast lens.)

Future developments of this technology and software should make it more useful as a creative tool. But this camera is certainly not doing much with it yet. Targeting the p&s market seems kind of pointless considering what cell phones and cheap cameras can already do.

@infosky, think of it like this: apply focus stacking techniques to the series of images produced for different planes. For example, you could combine the closest planes with the farthest planes yet leave the middle ground OOF.

I agree with Erik M. For security camera, you don't have form factor limitation. One should use large focal lens and large sensor with high pixel count, while maintaining high F/#. It will get everything in focus with high sensitivity.

I appreciate the gimmick aspect of this. It actually is pretty cool. But when did it become so difficult to select a spot to focus on? Especially since we now have auto-focus, that can easily be overridden if you prefer some other focus point.

In the past 50 years I have never once "wished I had focused on something else." Is this a real problem for anyone, or is this just another cool gimmick to play with?

I think this is the Nimslo 3D camera of the new millennium.

Interesting technology.... very cool gimmick... but after they sell a few, and people get bored with "re-changing the focus points" you will find Lycos cameras selling at thrift shops for $3 each.

Interesting. But still a long way to go. I'm thinking if this technology can be used to replace the dichroic filters... Use a single ccd to replace 3 ccds... a true RGB signal from a single ccd.... just a thought.

One, Foveon actually exists and there are patents by a number of other camera companies for similar multi-layer sensors. Secondly, what would you gain vs. super-sampling with a current mosaic ala the new Nokia?

Foveon's layered sensor created complexity in circuit design and increased the production cost. Moreover, due to the multi-layer design, the sensitivity of individual layers is lower than the Bayer filter image sensor.Bayer filter image sensor is a matured product with comparatively low production cost, however, the mosaic filter created another problem to the Bayer filter image sensor. My thinking is a kind of solution to generate a true RGB signal from a single ccd with the quality of 3 ccds but with low production cost. Regarding the new Nokia 40+MP sensor, the problem is it still creating false RGB signals by applying the Bayer filter methology.

“Light field" technology seems like a needlessly complex way to achieve the goal of selective focus after taking a shot. As the review correctly states, “in a small-sensor conventional camera, you tend to get depth-of-field that stretches from near the camera, out to infinity.” Given that, a camera maker should simply develop user-friendly, in-camera firmware that allows you to selectively defocus everything in the image except what you want to be sharp. In other words, synthetic bokeh. Could that be so hard to invent?

To do that, you need to store the depth information with the image. Otherwise you're not actually selectively defocusing, you're just selecting a region of the image and blurring it. That's just standard Photoshop. So what you're suggesting seems to be a small sensor image with the depth information stored with the image. That's exactly what the Lytro is.

You could get some depth information from multiple AF sensors where the focus aperture is different from the taking aperture and/or the changes during the focus operation. This may be enough to do a credible job for most artistic photographic purposes.

Samsung just announced a new sensor prototype that records z (depth) information along with the traditional RGB mosaic. Once developed further, that would give you the ability to emulate wide-aperture background blurring via processing.

It's interesting to hear that selective defocusing technologies are indeed under development. To Stephen123's point, yes what I'm talking about is in essence standard Photoshop--selecting regions of the image and blurring them. What I'm wondering, though, is if there isn't a way to more or less automatically accomplish this via a firmware option rather than manually, after the fact, via software. When you depress the shutter halfway to focus, on, say, a person in the foreground, the camera then knows to blur out every other aspect of the picture to the degree the photographer desires. To me, this approach seems inherently easier--and doesn't require the image quality sacrifices of the Lytro--than the very elaborate microlens array. To apply this effect in a nuanced way I suppose you'd need what Erik suggests, multiple AF sensor readings, but that still seems easier than the microlens approach and wouldn't compromise the quality of the actual image capture.

It's interesting to hear that selective defocusing technologies are indeed under development. To Stephen123's point, yes what I'm talking about is in essence standard Photoshop--selecting regions of the image and blurring them. What I'm wondering, though, is if there isn't a way to more or less automatically accomplish this via a firmware option rather than manually, after the fact, via software. When you depress the shutter halfway to focus, on, say, a person in the foreground, the camera then knows to blur out every other aspect of the picture to the degree the photographer desires. To me, this approach seems inherently easier--and doesn't require the image quality sacrifices of the Lytro--than the very elaborate microlens array. To apply this effect in a nuanced way I suppose you'd need what Erik suggests, multiple AF sensor readings, but that still seems easier than the microlens approach and wouldn't compromise the quality of the actual image capture.

Exactly. But even the first crude digital cameras had practical uses right away in addition to novelty. That's what's unclear about the Lytro. (I have a film camera that does easy 360 panoramas. That's not enough to bring back film.)

Yes and no. When digital cameras came out they were low resolution, but nothing limited their resolution in the future. Now sensors that "out resolve" lenses are common and everyone expected them to eventually get to where we are now.

This is a bit different, physics and information theory tell you there is a fundamental limit to the resolution that has nothing to do with the sensor and everything to do with diffraction. So the resolution isn't going to improve much. You'll always be stuck at resolutions significantly lower than "normal" cameras and there really is no way around that.

That isn't necessarily an issue - it doesn't need to hit the same market. It is a different thing. Digital cameras though are very much a replacement of film by comparison and that's where your metaphor breaks down.

DPR conclusion :"For now, we think the resolution is too low and that the small sensor means you need rather exaggerated compositions to offer significant refocusability in the resulting file. In the week that Nokia announced a phone with a larger, 41MP sensor, it's hard not to wonder what the Light Field Camera would be like if it was based around that chip."

What about a focussing bracket option for the usual digital camera type?Shoot 3 or 5 pic i.s.o. one, focussing also one or two little steps (customizable as percent of distance) closer or more distant. Later keep those that please you most.

No, I get it. You said "can't"; it can. Doing it quickly would require a lens and focusing algorithm designed for that (e.g. small internal focus element that can move quickly to different steps.)

Much of what Lytro does can be done with multiple exposures -- just with different implementation and computational considerations. (Hint: what do the prisms/microlenses effectively do except record multiple different focus views of the scene? The difference is in the simultaneous capture and the reconstruction processing.)

"Moving things" are not "much of what Lytro does" if you look at their sample photos. Even then, it depends on the composition: for example the Lytro sample of the surfer eyeing the waves would only require 2 or 3 focus planes to emulate.

In-camera multi-exposure HDR has the same issues for moving objects -- which hasn't stopped it from being useful and widely implemented. Light field photography has some significant implementation costs. If there is another way to get much of the benefit without those costs, then LF will remain a niche application. Similar to 3-CCD vs. Bayer mosaic for color photography. Good enough -- but more compatible -- usually wins over novel.

By mixing all the available software techniques that make use of excess Mpx there is finally the chance to put excess res to good use.Many can see that with many megapixel you can zoom in and still retain quality, but you lack the shallow DOF of tele lens.Using a light field system you become able to chose the DOF a posteriori.Not only that, but I think it will be pretty simple to chose the /shape/ of the bokeh, by actually putting everything in focus and then defocusing via software the portions that need to be oof.This obviously is going to happen in quite some years, but that's an exciting perspective, because it means that some things that up until now we thought couldn't be performed without analog moving parts (e.g. size and shape of the aperture) now have a chance too get their digital counterpart (not necessarily a good thing, but an alternative nonetheless)

Resolution test shots should be done though. I doubt the 1080^2 resolution, I guess its is upscaled. The preliminary math I did tells me so. It yields more like 820^2 assuming 4x4 rays per pixel which is also a plausible figure taking the Bayer filter into account.

I'm going by my memory of reading Ng's PHd some months back, but don't see the text at the top of my pile of books, so can't look quickly. I don't remember a bayer filer with the Contax he modified for the dissertation research.

Other light field papers/implementations suggest that the output "resolution" actually depends on the focus point. On the dpreview sample with the 3 cameras, the Leica in the back has noticeably poor detail.

So you're saying the micro lenses replace the bayer filter, I was calling those micro lenses prisms, which is what they looked like when I held one at a demonstration--held the micro lens/prism array separated from the camera.

I said it from the beginning: this is at best a solution in search of a problem, and at worst a complex gimmick. No matter what research is pointed my way, I still don't see what's so revolutionary about the tech. I've been told I need a phd to understand it. Good luck selling that. In the end it still looks like a bunch of simultaneous exposures at different focus points. Big deal. I think the best they can hope for is that somebody buys their IP and they can break even on the clearance sale.

They compare it to Polaroid. I'm afraid not. Polaroid was a high quality mainstay in the beginning. Only later did they cheapen the process and release junky cameras. Lytro is starting off with junk, and they don't even have a niche to fill. Maybe they can compare to Holgas or Dianas.

The thesis was submitted in a computer science school. Why not physics or optics? Did a camera engineer review and comment on the document? Did it appear in a peer-reviewed journal open to comments by other camera designers?

@HowaboutRAW - You said "An obvious application, with much better video gear, would be to shoot a whole movie and not worry about focus while shooting--ever."....Really?...OK so clearly you (or your PR people) know nothing about film making because no DP would ever want that. Ever! First you guys need to learn about why we like our 7D's and 50D mkII's and why we've replaced our video cameras. Remember, find a need, fill a need. That's biz 101.

HowaboutRAW: I'm with robogobo (above) who says "No matter what research is pointed my way...<snip>"

Real photographers & film makers don't care about your prism technology. It's a gadget. Why am I bringing-up DSLR technology that has matured 20 years? Because it's the current market leader and the reason we fork-out thousands to the likes-of Canon and Nikon. You think we can't get a shot infocus at f22 and a high ISO setting on these things? It's you that are showing ignorance. Watch this recent video by Canon Europe on the new 5DmkIII and then tell me that "post processing" the blur actually makes ANY sense? http://vimeo.com/37804617

I mean please, do you really think that the DP wished that he could do the BOKEH AFTERWARDS on every frame that needed it with a bank of servers to chomp on those bits like a 3D rendering? That's ridiculous! Do you think he or she had any problems getting the focus right? You're clearly not a DP just sounding more like a hired PR person or an employee.

The way it is now, the Lytro is a gadget. Nice to have when you want to spend the money. I wonder if you could get the same effect with a hdr-like technique. Hfr (high focus range) a number of consecutive shots which are then merged into one interactive image, or into one image which is in focus over the entire range. (A fly's eye in the foreground an mount Fuji in the background).

I think Lytro should get a Forum of its own, so as to see what people would really like. Too many manufacturers seem not to care about potential customers' opinions and needs, and simply push whatever comes out of their R&D departments. The separate Cats and Dogs in Pet program modes are just an example, especially compared to good, useful ideas contained in, say, CHDK thinking.While being hilariously useless, a customer has to pay for such "advanced" "novelties" nevertheless, and I have this queasy feeling that someone is having a good laugh over what all they managed to sell...I surely hope Lytro does not decide to follow such examples.

This certainly isn't an idea to disparage lightly, as many seem to do without proper understanding of the principle. Its usability will improve, the pics are going to be better with time. It will be used in many fields not currently obvious to all.As with all beginnings, opinions range over the whole scale.I'd like to see this concept connected with Origami optics, though. It might even further open the f-stop, while considerably reducing the camera's front size.There should be options of interchangeable memory and battery as a matter of practicality. I see no advantage in separate models of separate capacity.So far, I'm not entertaining any idea about posessing the Lytro until there is no proper software. This system will only gain popularity when it gets its independence from the Lytro site. This dependence upon mother site is presumably temporary, while research still goes on. The "attractiveness" of FB, though, is "anti-cue" to me, but other people might think otherwise...

Till recently i dismissed a consumer-oriented Lytro as "solution searching its problems". Probably will stay so for a while, unless they can show enticing bokeh control for small lens/sensors a la nikon 1... or some other algorithms for DOF manipulations (again, small sensor/lens issue). Something good may come out of this in the consumer space, too. The pro apps are persuasive enough already.

Dislikes: Closed ecosystem a la Apple. Built-in fixed (small) storage and battery, dead in ca. 500 cycles, nothing user replaceable? Further encroaching on users' freedom is the lack of local software to render my pics, which are 1st seen/censored in the Cloud by the company i just paid. Apple and FB got away w/ such practices because people wanted their product badly enough to trade some of their freedom/privacy. Lytro doesn't have such fatal attraction yet.

Interesting thought about built-in "non"-replaceable batteries, which (of course) ARE replaceable, just not by users ...

... I have NEVER had to replace ANY of my Li-ion batteries in a mix of laptops, Nokia phones, and assorted digital cameras. Invariably, the DEVICES have failed or been replaced due to becoming obsolete, LONG before the battery expired. The reason is, I top-up-charge my Li-ions after EVERY use, and this way, they last for very many years.

The same was NOT true about NiCd, or even NiMh, but thankfully those days are passed.

So am I worried about built-in batteries in my iPad 1? No, because by the time they go, I'll own an iPad 5. And my lovely Olympus E-1 is still going strong, 10s of 1000s of photoes later, after 6+ years of use on the same, original battery pack.

Yes, I've just touched wood to avoid cursing my kit, but let's face it: you don't NEED to be able to replace Li-ion batteries in kit with an expected useful lifetime measured in just a handful of years.

I think it's down to how you use your Li-ions. They DON'T like being fully discharged, and should NOT be routinely run down and then charged - the exact OPPOSITE of NiCd and NiMh. If (like me) you keep your Li-ion devices topped up all the time, the batteries will last you for years.

Just checked - Apple provide a battery replacement service for all their iPods, iPads and iPhones, at reasonable prices. So after all, the built-in (or rather, non-USER-replaceable) battery is NOT an issue!

1. LYTRO style: point a rectangular box in the general direction you want to photograph, using a 128x128 pixel grid to aim, stroke the surface to frame it, and press the button; later, transfer the images to your computer using proprietary software (Mac only), and from there, upload 16Mb per picture to a website, interact with it to select your preferred focus points, and download one or more 1Mpixel JPG files showing most parts of each photo fuzzy, and one part sharp. Use your browser to share images with your friends on FaceBook.

2) iPhone style: point phone to frame image on a gorgeous high res colour display; press button; capture glorious 8Mpixel images and share them on Twitter, Facebook or Email immediately.

Guess I know which I'd rather have with me, on those occasions I've left my DSLR at home or in the car. Plus (2) makes phone calls.

Compared to (say) a Canon Ixus/Elph 230 HS, the iPhone totally SUCKS as a low-light camera. Its one and only photographic advantage, even over my trusty Olympus E-1, is that it is always WITH ME! And a camera with poor low-light handling is still better than no camera at all! :-)

This post is more about the "ease of use" issue, something Apple have encompassed in spades, together with integration of Twitter in iOS 5, and helped further by the availability of Facebook and Twitter Apps.

I still do all my "serious" photography on the E-1, and tote this together with a laptop, a wireless router, USB cables, and more, with me whenever I travel.

But the immediacy of being able to take an iPhone snap, and half a dozen taps on the glass later, have that picture on Facebook, Twitter, or emailed at full resolution to my own account for later work, trumps the DSLR on many occasions.

What I would do for a DSLR with built in WiFi and G3 comms, and running iOS5 ... Apple, are you listening?!

This tech should be implemented for video use. So that you could easily make the perfectly smooth and exact spot on focus pulls - in the post process! That would be truly revolutionary. No need to worry about pumping auto focus, low light focusing problems and moving subjects in all kinds of action, low contrast and messy scenes. Whoa, that would rock!

I still wonder why DPreview overs Lytro so much... I mean, there are plenty of cameras that need a review, this is nothing more than a proof of concept with ridiculous resolution. Still, any news about it get on the homepage of DPreview.

For sure it is possible to create a "depth map" from the images. Algorithm, roughly speaking: For each point, bring it in focus and then check the distance scale of the virtual lens.

If the depth map has a decent range and resolution (perhaps with a larger sensor): This could be an interesting application for replacing devices such as the Kinect sensor for coarse real time 3D scanning.

Don't see the point. As far as I understand it, when rendering a picture, the Lytro throws away most of the light rays reaching the sensor. This is in contrast to a conventional camera. Consequently, I expect the Lytro to have really bad low-light performance, even with the aperture wide open.

Im talking about Nikon or Canon buying this tech, making a FF sensor and stick it in their special function cameras (landscape, macro, forensics etc). I just say that it is amazing that you could shoot with 85 1.4 @1.4 and have the entire picture in focus.

@HowaboutRAW: Don't forget that the output resolution is rather small (sufficient for the intended purpose, though). So, high-res noise or camera shake is not well noticeable. Just think about how the camera works: Unless there is some magic going on, most of the light information reaching the sensor is discarded when rendering the picture.

If you are talking about printing a jpeg, yes then information is discarded.

But that's not how the Lytro files work. You need to think not of pixel by pixel resolution, but another dimension of resolution. Yes the 2D image isn't that many pixels. No sure that this version of lower resolution avoids some camera shake problems, because the resolution of this sensor is used elsewhere.

Right, go to the Lytro website and click to refocus the images, that's not discarded information. That's information which is being rearranged. To print a jpeg is discarding information, as I already wrote.

The information in the in-focus area is not discarded from the file--by your explanation, if true, the information is suppressed in the in-focus area of the photo representation on the screen. Then a different in-focus are can be selected and different information suppressed.

I agree with the video reviewer. Absolutely fantastic execution from concept to reality. But the resolution is too low that it is rather gimmicky. But what first camera has everything? Hopefully they make enough revenue so that they one day make a product that everyone could see value in.

I used to think how an interesting technology this is until I viewed the samples and realized how little I can do with this camera's output.

I'd rather a camera that can take auto-GIFs or like short clips to make "moving photos" that can be easily used in various social networking or online publication sites/apps. That would be more entertaining than refocusing.